Yes We Cain: Herman Cain is officially running for President

We love Herman Cain. The former Godfather’s Pizza CEO announced Saturday that he is officially running for President of the United States. And he did it in front of a crowd of 15,000 rabid supporters.

He closed his speech by saying that when the votes are counted on Election Day in November 2012, and everyone wakes up the day after with Herman Cain as the new President, “We’ll all be able to say, ‘Free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty this nation is free again.'”

The Hermanator’s our man. At least until Marco Rubio or Allen West or Chris Christie decide to run. Then we have a tough decision to make.

140

Leave a Reply

Author: Kip Hooker
Comment:
Oh, stop bawling and whining. Can you name even one civil right or liberty you’ve been ordered to surrender since Obama took office?

Hmm how about administration support for reading citizen’s emails without a warrant. Or tracking them through cell towers their mobile devices have pinged to, or DNA sampling upon arrest or directing LEO on how to target citizen’s with Ron Paul stickers or those showing messages of constitutional support. And how much of the PATRIOT act has Obama worked to do away with? Oh but that’s not his fault is it. He didn’t actually reauthorize the bill . . . that was Autopen.
*******************
I’m opposed to the Patriot Act, and I have been ever since Bush instituted it. (Oddly enough, there were very few complainers from the right, at the time, even though it’s currently fashionable for right wingers to boast that they were opposed to it.)

But we’re talking about Obama here, not Bush. I’m as disappointed as anyone that Obama extended that act, but he didn’t start it. And there’s no reason to suppose that McCain, if he’d won the election instead of Obama, would have stopped it.

So, once again: Can you name even one civil right or liberty you’ve been ordered to surrender since Obama took office?

*******************************

Your assertion that national socialism is a far right ideology is indicative of an understanding of political ideology that doesn’t even extend to the high school level. In politics (especially world politics) terms like left wing and right wing lose much of their meaning unless they have first been determined by a time and location. In 1950 Moscow Joseph Stalin was a conservative . . . while if he were to visit Washington DC of the same year he could have been properly categorized as a liberal. Although not the sort of classical liberal that I sometimes identify myself as.
************************
You’re a “classical liberal,” like I’m Queen Hatshepsut of Egypt. 😉

************************
The Nazi aversion to art and all that does not glory the state is what comes after the revolution or coup. After the useful idiots have wrested control away from the established powers and given it to the upstarts its weekly shaves, haircuts and gulags for those who don’t praise the glory of the collective.

If your want to know about military pageantry I suggest you watch some video of May Day celebration’s from the history of The Soviet Union.
******************************
I don’t need any lessons on military pageantry, Kip. One thing you seem to be losing sight of is that socialism is an ECONOMIC system, not a form of government. Both the USSR and Nazi Germany were totalitarian governments, and I assure you I’m not a fan of totalitarian governments, even if I am evil and radical enough to believe in affordable health care for all citizens. ;>)
********************************

If you want to see some leo brutality why don’t you watch some video of the Obama era TSA.
********************************
Why don’t you show me some concrete evidence that Obama has ordered LEO brutality? Or stop making up fairy tales?
********************************
If you want to know about eugenics do some research into the American progressive movement of the early 20th century.
********************************
I already “know about eugenics,” Kip. Liberal here, remember? A liberal who’s actually studied biology, anatomy, physiology, anthropology and evolution? Yes, there were some liberals who believed in eugenics 80 or so years ago. It hadn’t been discredited as thoroughly then as it is now. But eugenics has been known to be junk science for decades now, and I don’t know any liberals who support it any more. In stark contrast to those right wingers who flatly reject the study of evolution (even though most of them don’t seem to understand what it is or how it works), even today.
***************************
And applying the term national socialism to the Nazi’s is not a misnomer. They were national socialists. Complete with a central command control of the economy that is the hallmark of most socialist systems.
****************************
Wrong again. You still seem to be confusing the concept of socialism with those of totalitarianism and republic-with-some-social-programs. The fact is, there are quite a few social democracies in existence today, and they have nothing in common with Nazism. The right wing spinmasters have done such a thorough job of frightening right wingers to death at the very sound of the word “social,” that they tend to see Commies hiding behind every tree, every time the government provides a service other than military actions.

”I’m opposed to the Patriot Act, and I have been ever since Bush instituted it. (Oddly enough, there were very few complainers from the right, at the time, even though it’s currently fashionable for right wingers to boast that they were opposed to it.)

But we’re talking about Obama here, not Bush. I’m as disappointed as anyone that Obama extended that act, but he didn’t start it. And there’s no reason to suppose that McCain, if he’d won the election instead of Obama, would have stopped it.

So, once again: Can you name even one civil right or liberty you’ve been ordered to surrender since Obama took office?”

Of course. How silly of me to forget. You became a neo con on January 20, 2009.

”I don’t need any lessons on military pageantry, Kip. One thing you seem to be losing sight of is that socialism is an ECONOMIC system, not a form of government. Both the USSR and Nazi Germany were totalitarian governments, and I assure you I’m not a fan of totalitarian governments, even if I am evil and radical enough to believe in affordable health care for all citizens. “

I’ve not lost sight of that. I am a little surprised that you didn’t include the Marx prophesy that the state would simply wither away. But perhaps you didn’t really want him brought into this. What you’ve lost sight of is a matter of practicality and mechanics. Socialism is an economy that demands compulsory service. If people are allowed to opt out then the most productive will . . . and very little will be left to fund all the precious resource eaters. This requires a government. Or an entity that assumes many of the conscription funcions usually reserved for the state. Even anarcho-communists call for “cooperatives” that will mandate service to the collective.

I’m a big fan of affordable health care. It becomes remarkably less so when I have to start providing it for everybody else. But being that socialism isn’t tied to the government then I suppose they won’t have the authority to pay for this program with my money? Or force me to insure my body as if it were their property.

”Why don’t you show me some concrete evidence that Obama has ordered LEO brutality? Or stop making up fairy tales?”

He is the President of the United States. He can stop them any time he wants.

”I already “know about eugenics,” Kip. Liberal here, remember? A liberal who’s actually studied biology, anatomy, physiology, anthropology and evolution? Yes, there were some liberals who believed in eugenics 80 or so years ago. It hadn’t been discredited as thoroughly then as it is now. But eugenics has been known to be junk science for decades now, and I don’t know any liberals who support it any more. In stark contrast to those right wingers who flatly reject the study of evolution (even though most of them don’t seem to understand what it is or how it works), even today.”

Yeah sorry, Hitler and the progressives had a lot in common. Including a belief in eugenics. You can’t blame that on modern right wing America. And you can’t spin it away by belittling some of them for rejecting evolution. In fact a rejection of evolution seems like a rejection of a belief in the possibility of eugenics. After all natural selection does suggest that the fittest propagating their genes (while those dying before reproducing will have their gene’s removed from the aggregate pool) is what leads to the transformations of a species. Eugenics is the stupid, clumsy, discredited way of men attempting to do this.

BTW I am not equating evolution with eugenics. I

Wrong again. You still seem to be confusing the concept of socialism with those of totalitarianism and republic-with-some-social-programs. The fact is, there are quite a few social democracies in existence today, and they have nothing in common with Nazism. The right wing spinmasters have done such a thorough job of frightening right wingers to death at the very sound of the word “social,” that they tend to see Commies hiding behind every tree, every time the government provides a service other than military actions.

Of course they have something in common with Nazism. A command control of the economy. The ability of the state to determine to subvert the rights of the individual in the cause of the collective and the community. Nazism is an inevitable stage of the evolution from individual liberty to “collective liberty”.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

June 6, 2011 5:16 pm

Guest

Corey

Olivia you are awesome and I’m sorry that all your posts get blocked it just shows that people are ignorant. Can just one person respond to you by answering any of the questions you asked without it turning into a I hate Obama comment? Keep up the truth Olivia and please continue to “pollute” the conservative sites and posts because it drives the america, teachers, union, and poor people haters crazy also known as the republicans.

Did anybody else ever notice that the CHP used to get into all kinds of other stuff besides patrolling the highways when CHIPS was on? Investigating smuggling rings, organized crime, etc. Or was that just the TV show? I still enjoyed watching it. Especially when my old buddy Bruce Penhall was on.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

May 26, 2011 12:42 pm

Guest

Larry Wilcoxx

Gawdamn you people are so incredibly ignorant. You’re a joke…a cartoon. Each and every one of you douchebags are pathetic. Well…here’s a hearty FUCK YOU to each of you whiny little morons. I look forward to hearing you bitch and moan when once again America rejects your corrupt beliefs and lack of any sort of serious policy.

You mean like they rejected our corrupt beliefs and lack of any sort of serious policy in the 2010 elections?

By the way, Larry, loved your work in CHIPS.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

May 23, 2011 8:26 pm

Member

Ruben

He was Ponch’s john.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

May 23, 2011 8:58 pm

Guest

Larry Wilcoxx

Hmmm…riddle me this asshole. Where were you and your TeaBagiin’ brethern the 8 years of the Miserable Failure? You douchebags keep saying you were against Bush’s spending…but for some reason I don’t remember you inbred losers bitching about it. What a pathetic group of racist assholes. Goodnight assholes.

Actually, Larry’s mommy just told him to turn off his wretched computer and get to bed. He has finals this week and this year, he had better pass because a 21 year-old high school senior is a pathetic sight.

Uh, Larry… I griped about Bush’s spending and cooled on him years before the end of his presidency. Your ears are not potent enough and you are not omnipresent so as to have heard all the conservative moaning about Bush spending.

We were bitching about the over spending then, too. You just couldn’t call it racist then.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

May 26, 2011 12:40 pm

Member

Babydoll102187

Wow…Thanks for the insults, havent had my feelings hurt in a while, I was begining to think I was actual human being with intelligent thoughts, but you have really put it into perspective. Thanks a bunch!

It would be a good thing that Obama creates a situation where the US votes for conservative “minorities”, it has kind of started actually last year so I hope the trend continues. I believe a lot of able “minorities” saw Obama and how he was such an embarrassment and placed their names in the hat and went for it. I think that is a good unintentional hope and change moment.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

May 23, 2011 2:11 pm

Member

Navyvet

Finally someone to support. I could support Michelle Bachman but I think the media pukes will be able to do a major hatchet job on her and sway the nitwits…again. I expect/hope Cain will hand them their lunch when they go after him, and they will.
Newt? (barf) Mitt? (retch) Pawlenty? (Mushball) These guys simply suck up to the media and hope they will be nice to them. How did that work for McCain?

You mean somebody that will FIGHT BACK against the media? I like it. I don’t see Herman pulling any punches when the liberal media goes after him. I’m glad he’s running.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

May 23, 2011 1:35 pm

Member

nonkenyan

I like him. I like West, too. A lot. I like Bachman. A lot. I’ll vote for the anti-Obama

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

May 23, 2011 8:00 pm

Member

john

I’d vote for Cain and West, I wonder what the screeching liberals that love to call racist’s would make of that, they’d have to move on to some new stupid accusations. Or maybe mayonaise white chrissy mathews would be calling them Uncle Toms, wouldn’t that be funny.

That’s pretty much guaranteed. They cannot wrap their piggy little racist minds around the concept of black, brown, or any other “minority” having a different view of politics.

I remember the crap they put Condi through, as well as numerous others. Their clear and disgusting racism showed through, loud and clear.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

May 22, 2011 7:39 pm

Member

john

Clarence Thomas also comes to mind. The real racists are white liberals, that’s what is so ironic about it. I think that white liberals consider Blacks as inferiors that need guidance and they see themselves as advocates for the uneducated black masses, and like white plantation owners, as long as they treat “thier blacks” kindly, they’re doing good. And when uppity educated and free thinking Blacks call them on it they don’t like that, so they start calling names. I really do not like or respect liberals, they are phoney’s, hypocrits, cowards and traitors.

Justice Thomas is an amazing man — for all the attempted hatchet jobs they pulled on him, he still maintains a professional, decent, and personable character. Me, I’d be more like a pit bull with rabies if I’d had to suffer through what he suffered through.

He’s truly an epic hero of the Republic.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

May 22, 2011 8:39 pm

Member

Olivia

Clarence Thomas also comes to mind.
***************************
Clarence Thomas is decidedly far right wing. WHy would you expect us liberals to be thrilled with him? Would you expect us to be thrilled with Scalia? Are you saying that our antipathy toward Scalia indicates that we’re opposed to white people? 😀
***************************
The real racists are white liberals, that’s what is so ironic about it. I think that white liberals consider Blacks as inferiors that need guidance and they see themselves as advocates for the uneducated black masses, and like white plantation owners, as long as they treat “thier blacks” kindly, they’re doing good.

****************************
Yet it’s the Democrats, not the Republicans, who have traditionally elected nonwhite candidates to Congress and the White House.

Did you know that there have been only two black House representatives—-and one black U.S. Senator—–elected by the GOP over the past 70 years?

That says volumes, for all the currently fashionable claims that the GOP respects nonwhite candidates so much. It says volumes, too, that the GOP welcomed the southern racists with open arms, when the Democrats lost the South’s support after the Civil Rights Act was passed—–and that those same racists have been happily ensconced in the GOP ever since.

No, better face facts, John. Republicans (and that includes I’m-actually-an-independent-but-I-always-vote-Republican-and-applaud-GOP-platforms Republicans) are still getting behind the same old jowly white Protestant good-old-boy network, even if they try to prove otherwise by screaming their approval of this one black Presidential hopeful. I’ve given them ample opportunity to explain why they think Cain is so great, but so far all they can do is babble about him not being Obama.

That’s a pretty feeble testimonial, for people who have been heralding him like the Second Coming (and, at the same time, gloating about how upset they imagine we liberals would be if he were elected). 😀

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

May 24, 2011 9:38 am

Member

Olivia

That’s pretty much guaranteed. They cannot wrap their piggy little racist minds around the concept of black, brown, or any other “minority” having a different view of politics.

********************
That’s a bigoted and inaccurate view, Perlcat. Unfortunately, when you get all your information about liberals from right wing rumormongers, instead of asking us directly, there’s no way you’re going to get an accurate picture of us.

Personally, I think ANYONE who votes against his own best interests is a blockhead, regardless of race, religion, gender, ethnicity, age, income level or sexual orientation. And, by the way, my mind is neither piggy nor little, let alone racist. Liberals are traditionally broad minded, which is one of the things right wingers tend to despise about us. Remember? All those sneers about us being too “politically correct” for our own good? So which is it going to be? Are we too tolerant, or not tolerant enough? You can’t have it both ways. 😀

Being politically correct is incompatable with being broad minded . . . political correctness is a doctrine of suppression.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

May 23, 2011 4:41 pm

Member

Olivia

Being politically correct is incompatable with being broad minded . . . political correctness is a doctrine of suppression.
***************************
“Political correctness” is a manufactured concept, designed to make cultural sensitivity (or any sort of sensitivity) sound like a bad thing.
I notice that right wingers love to use that term as a weapon, whenever they want to attack liberals but can’t find any specific rationale for doing so. Which serves only to weaken their own arguments.
If you want to argue with me, Kip, best leave the trendy buzzwords and I’m-willing-to-bet blind accusations out of it. So far, all of your arguments have boiled down to “I hate Obama, so let’s focus on that instead of my political convictions.” And any indoctrinated eight year old could have taken that position.

I like the inconsistency of your argument about our alleged positions on “freedom” and “abortion,” too. Apparently you want unfettered freedom for yourselves and those who think and act and believe as you do, but oppression for those who don’t. So what’s it going to be? Do you think the government should butt out of people’s private lives, or do you think it should regulate any attempts to deviate from approved evangelical Christian principles? You can’t have it both ways. 😀

Now, suppose you stew about that for a while, while I go get some work done. I’ll be back later, to see if you’ve managed to come up with an argument explaining why your insistence on “freedom” is so narrow and intolerant.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

May 24, 2011 9:50 am

Member

Olivia

“Radical homosexual agenda.” Don’t tell me you’re one of those ninnies who believes that gay people go around trying to recruit straight people? Don’t you realize that that’s a bogus claim, dreamed up by closet homosexual GOPers trying to blame somebody else for their own sexual shenanigans?

I like the inconsistency of your argument about our alleged positions on “freedom” and “abortion,” too. Apparently you want unfettered freedom for yourselves and those who think and act and believe as you do, but oppression for those who don’t. So what’s it going to be? Do you think the government should butt out of people’s private lives, or do you think it should regulate any attempts to deviate from approved evangelical Christian principles? You can’t have it both ways.

Now, suppose you stew about that for a while, while I go get some work done. I’ll be back later, to see if you’ve managed to come up with an argument explaining why your insistence on “freedom” is so narrow and intolerant.
***********************
How sad is this? I issue a challenge to the poster who posted this laundry list of talking points….and no one has the courage to stand up to it. Instead, they charge forth to vote my post down, and get rid of the challenge.

You know, a political position that can’t tolerate a little challenge (and, let’s face it, when it’s me against the rest of you, that is NOT a very intimidating challenge!) isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. All this grumbling about liberals supposedly being on the “wrong side of issues”—-yet everyone’s too timid to defend THEIR position on those same issues?

If you can’t even defend your convictions on a far right wing anonymous discussion board….what would EVER make you think you can defend them to the voting public?

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

May 24, 2011 11:53 am

Member

Babydoll102187

I’ll go a sparring round with you, care to discuss feminist and abortion?

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

May 24, 2011 7:11 pm

Member

Olivia

I’ll go a sparring round with you, care to discuss feminist and abortion?

The answer is that liberals would immediately begin referring to West and Cain as oreos, just like they did with Michael Steele when he ran for the U.S. Senate. They threw Oreo cookies at him when he attempted to speak.

About ten years ago, when my lunatic liberal mother-in-law told me that there are no black Republicans and I said, “What about Condi Rice and Colin Powell?” she said, “They’re not really black. You can’t be conservative and black.”

Black conservatives scare the living hell out of liberals. They know their party would be decimated if the black masses ever started to become Republican.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

May 22, 2011 7:45 pm

Guest

whiskeyriver

The same holds true for us “coconuts”, brown on the outside and white in the middle. Hispanic conservatives really scare the hell out of liberals and our numbers grow every day.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

May 22, 2011 9:54 pm

Member

Olivia

The same holds true for us “coconuts”, brown on the outside and white in the middle. Hispanic conservatives really scare the hell out of liberals and our numbers grow every day.

**************************
No, I’m not scared of you, either. But I am very puzzled at your remark about being “white in the middle.” What does that mean? Are you anemic, or what?

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

May 23, 2011 1:29 pm

Member

Olivia

The same holds true for us “coconuts”, brown on the outside and white in the middle. Hispanic conservatives really scare the hell out of liberals and our numbers grow every day.

**************************
No, I’m not scared of you, either. But I am very puzzled at your remark about being “white in the middle.” What does that mean? Are you anemic, or what?

***************************
And, just as I expected, my post was promptly voted down by six posters here…..but not one of them was honest enough to answer my question.

I guess I’m forced to draw my own conclusions as to why no one had the courage to respond.

Black conservatives scare the living hell out of liberals. They know their party would be decimated if the black masses ever started to become Republican.

***************************

Wrong. It wouldn’t be a matter of a party being decimated, but of Hell freezing over. 😀

(And, no, you’re wrong. Black conservatives don’t scare me in the least. I just assume that they’re attracted to the far right for the same reasons white conservatives are. Which isn’t necessarily complimentary to either group.)

Would someone like to volunteer to monitor Olivia’s posts for obscenity?We normally monitor the comments very closely for foul language, but I honestly can’t bring myself to read her long-winded, sanctimonious comments any more. Haven’t read them in about two weeks. She could be cussing up a storm and I wouldn’t know. Just. Can’t. Read. Them.

I feel your pain. Not gonna volunteer, though. Usually, I just thumbs down the ones I can get at least a couple words in on, knowing that once two more people do it, a person has to willingly volunteer to have to read them.

I don’t like to do that to people, but I’d have to say that in her case, drivel is as drivel does.

I still say she needs her own tags.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

May 24, 2011 10:23 am

Guest

hisham

Mr. E, don’t worry about whatever profanity she may be spewing, we just automatically give her posts a thumbs down so we won’t have to read them. She can vent all she wants, but it will be kind of like screaming into her pillow…no one else is listening! Eventually, even liberal smarten up and move on.

While I don’t deny the pleasure of taking a programming language to its limits, somebody’s got to read, understand, and maintain code, or it’s worthless. People that write it as a write-only language usually get a specially crafted ping packet from me.

So clarity and a well-organized argument are more impressive to me than having to parse idiosyncratic structures that don’t add value or insight.

On the other hand, using text mining techniques, a person could duplicate her posts by matching the post to the trope separated by a row of asterisks. It’s about 15 lines of code, plus a corpus of documents to learn from. I thought about writing it, but I figured that as a programmer and a conservative, I would be damning myself to a new sort of hell by having to read that all the time.

I feel you. I can’t do it either. I admire those that do, but at some point I value my sanity over stomping over liberal absurdity.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

May 24, 2011 11:45 am

Member

Olivia

Would someone like to volunteer to monitor Olivia’s posts for obscenity?We normally monitor the comments very closely for foul language, but I honestly can’t bring myself to read her long-winded, sanctimonious comments any more. Haven’t read them in about two weeks. She could be cussing up a storm and I wouldn’t know. Just. Can’t. Read. Them.
*************************
Then why would you even care?

Sounds like somebody can’t handle hearing a liberal point of view, and is trying to dream up excuses to stifle them on this board.

That’s pretty sad. Almost as sad as the way unpopular viewpoints get “hidden” here. Shows a decided intolerance for new ideas and new information.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

May 24, 2011 11:47 am

Member

nonkenyan

No. It’s like this: Thumbs down can mean , “I don’t like your comment”. It can also mean, “You’re an idiot”.
As for us “hearing a liberal point of view”, that’s kinda impossible because you’re typing and we’re reading. And, you’re typing about half of the text, and copy and pasting the rest. What the hell is this? Polly wants a cracker? You repeat everything every one posts and argue with every sentence knit picking. It’s annoying. Go hang out with people that like you.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

May 24, 2011 8:58 pm

Member

Olivia

No. It’s like this: Thumbs down can mean , “I don’t like your comment”. It can also mean, “You’re an idiot”.
As for us “hearing a liberal point of view”, that’s kinda impossible because you’re typing and we’re reading. And, you’re typing about half of the text, and copy and pasting the rest. What the hell is this? Polly wants a cracker? You repeat everything every one posts and argue with every sentence knit picking. It’s annoying. Go hang out with people that like you.
***********************
Translation: “I don’t like what you post, but I can’t refute any of it—-so instead I’ll criticize your posting style, and tell you to go away.”

I’ve yet to see you refute any post that you respond to. At least not with facts, links, or any supporting evidence. All you have is condescension. Just like a liberal.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

May 26, 2011 12:26 pm

Guest

DJ

“Black conservatives scare the living hell out of liberals. They know their party would be decimated if the black masses ever started to become Republican.”

You mean if they become Republicans again. MLK delivered the black vote to the Democrats and the vast majority have stayed there…the libs gotta make sure the blacks stay on the government plantation.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

May 23, 2011 9:39 pm

Member

Olivia

I’d vote for Cain and West, I wonder what the screeching liberals that love to call racist’s would make of that, they’d have to move on to some new stupid accusations. Or maybe mayonaise white chrissy mathews would be calling them Uncle Toms, wouldn’t that be funny.

********************
I”ve been hearing quite a few far righters parroting that comment lately, but no liberals actually doing it.

But I AM still waiting for one of you far righters to explain why you think Cain is superior to all other GOP candidates. When you constantly refer to his race, and how it’s likely to affect us liberals, I get the impression that it isn’t Cain himself that you value, but the fact that he’s black—-and that you think you can use his race as a weapon to get back at us.

I hope that isn’t true, but I’m surely not hearing anything from you to contradict it.

Personally, I haven’t listened to Rush in many years. He’s got a lot of good things to say, but he’s just too much in the pocket of the Republican Party. Including the RINO’s. I often listen to Dr. Savage, and Mark Levin. To me, they’re much more entertaining, while being right on most issues.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

May 26, 2011 12:30 pm

Member

Ruben

Your Jedi mind tricks won’t work here, Olivia. You see, the left has been setting the rules for skin color and politics for far too long. When we start beating you from the Right or conversing according to those same rules, then you try and turn it around on us.

Herman Cain is more than just a “clean, articulate” black man (a la Joe Biden) to those of us who are curious about him. We suspect he will be business-friendly and get this nation’s economy back on track.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

May 23, 2011 8:56 pm

Member

Olivia

Your Jedi mind tricks won’t work here, Olivia. You see, the left has been setting the rules for skin color and politics for far too long. When we start beating you from the Right or conversing according to those same rules, then you try and turn it around on us.

Herman Cain is more than just a “clean, articulate” black man (a la Joe Biden) to those of us who are curious about him. We suspect he will be business-friendly and get this nation’s economy back on track.
**************************
We had a “business friendly” president for eight years, Ruben….and he dragged our economy down into the toilet. What makes you think that repeating the same failed strategies over and over and over will eventually result in success?

In any case, if you truly think Cain has such great potential, why can’t you articulate even one thing about him that you regard as superior to other GOP hopefuls?

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

May 24, 2011 11:32 am

Member

john

Go pollute the huffington post or whatever liberal, anti American sites you visit, your looooong boring riddles are taking up too much space and most if not all of us can only stand to read through a sentence or two. Your a fool.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

May 25, 2011 3:00 pm

Guest

alien

its hardly a riddle, and not likely a boring question either as the primary gets going. You gotta sell Cain to the middle if he’s going to beat Obama

Aye, there’s the rub. What makes him attractive to me — he’s plain-spoken, and rather than spouting platitudes, says that he plans on doing the appropriate research on the issues, and reserves making decisions until he has all the facts. Tired of people saying they have all the answers, and after they’re in office, turns out not so much.

For far too long, far too many Republican candidates act like a deer in the headlights when somebody hits them hard on a subject — they can be right as can be, but they look like a schmuck when they can’t come up with an answer on the spot. It was also why Trump had such an appeal. Thinking on your feet is a major asset.

I don’t know if that makes him an attractive candidate to you, but I sure get tired of bumper sticker solutions that would never work in a million years — and depend upon a willing suspension of disbelief from the voters. (They were against *two* wars, so Bush is the totem used to vote out the uncharismatic McCain — apparently the correct number of wars to run at one time is *three*. Who knew?)

If you want to read something on the subject that will make you sick to your stomach, check out ‘Duped America’ by Richard Bernstein. We as a populace have been remarkably trolled. All’s we’re missing is trollface and somebody saying ‘U mad?’

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

May 25, 2011 5:53 pm

Member

Olivia

Aye, there’s the rub. What makes him attractive to me — he’s plain-spoken, and rather than spouting platitudes, says that he plans on doing the appropriate research on the issues, and reserves making decisions until he has all the facts. Tired of people saying they have all the answers, and after they’re in office, turns out not so much.

For far too long, far too many Republican candidates act like a deer in the headlights when somebody hits them hard on a subject — they can be right as can be, but they look like a schmuck when they can’t come up with an answer on the spot. It was also why Trump had such an appeal. Thinking on your feet is a major asset.

***********************
You just contradicted yourself. First you said you like Cain because he doesn’t pretend to have all the answers; then you criticized Republicans who “look like a schmuck when they can’t come up with an answer on the spot.” So which is it? Do you prefer candidates with ready answers, or candidates without ready answers? You can’t have it both ways.

I agree that it’s nice to have a candidate who’s “plain spoken.” (Most candidates are.) I also understand your admiration of candidates who say they’re going to do research—–but that could easily be just another empty political “promise.” And, let’s face it: the president of the United States doesn’t always have the luxury of being able to go do research before making a decision or giving an opinion.

Personally, I don’t mind bumper sticker slogans during a campaign: that, after all, is just an advertising ploy like any other. (Of course, I also don’t have TV, so I don’t have to listen to the endless repetitive political ads.) The problem is when bumper sticker slogans take the place of thinking and reasoning.

But, you know, I’m still not hearing why you think Cain would make a better president than any of the other GOP hopefuls. You’re focusing on style, not substance, and style is merely the package and gift wrap, not the product itself.

Everyone here but you understands what I was getting on about. I’ll type this real slow so you can understand it.

Cain said that he could not make decisions on the war in Afghanistan or Iraq because he has to have access to the intelligence that our Dear Leader has.

However, we conservatives come under attack on a daily basis from people like Debbie Wasserman-Schultz for things like being “anti-women”, and “trying to kill our seniors”, and oh, I like this one, “If Republicans had their way, we’d *all* be driving foreign cars” (she drives an Infiniti — apparently we got to her before we got to anyone else). Cain shows promise of dealing with incendiary trolls like that.

That’s a good thing, because people such as yourself have come to believe the rhetoric and bombast.

A person in a position of authority has to guard their tongue. If you started cracking off about health care theories outside your field of expertise without the knowledge to back you up, you’d deservedly land in hot water. However, a person such as Foulmouth Wasserman-Schultz vomits out *obvious* lies and bullshit that is *clearly* harmful and over the top, and you guys all lap the filth up.

Pathetic.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

May 27, 2011 6:04 am

Member

Olivia

Cain said that he could not make decisions on the war in Afghanistan or Iraq because he has to have access to the intelligence that our Dear Leader has.

**********************
Which says nothing whatsoever about his ability to lead a nation—-it just shows that he’s good at dodging questions.
**********************
However, we conservatives come under attack on a daily basis from people like Debbie Wasserman-Schultz for things like being “anti-women”, and “trying to kill our seniors”, and oh, I like this one, “If Republicans had their way, we’d *all* be driving foreign cars” (she drives an Infiniti — apparently we got to her before we got to anyone else). Cain shows promise of dealing with incendiary trolls like that.
**************************
What do you mean, “dealing with incendiary trolls”? What has he said to or about her that convinces you he’s got the potential to lead the world’s most powerful nation?
**************************
That’s a good thing, because people such as yourself have come to believe the rhetoric and bombast.
**************************
No, I don’t pay much attention to “rhetoric and bombast.” But obviously the right wingers who frequent this board do, because the story of the day always seems to be some highly slanted and Obamaphobic (and often petty) opinion piece. And I’m STILL waiting for you to explain why you think Cain is the best candidate for the GOP nomination, and why you think he’d make a great president. So far, all you’ve done is to describe YOUR feelings, and to say that Cain won’t discuss the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan.
***********************

A person in a position of authority has to guard their tongue. If you started cracking off about health care theories outside your field of expertise without the knowledge to back you up, you’d deservedly land in hot water. However, a person such as Foulmouth Wasserman-Schultz vomits out *obvious* lies and bullshit that is *clearly* harmful and over the top, and you guys all lap the filth up.
**************************
Wrong. I don’t know anything about anyone by that name, and I read (and listen to) very few liberal commentaries. But I’m sitting here chuckling at your argument: that refusing to discuss current issues, on the grounds that he doesn’t think he has enough knowledge to do so, is somehow the mark of a great president.

I grant you that it sounds better than Sarah Palin’s style, which is to spout off about things she knows (and cares) NOTHING about….but, so far, your praise for Cain is the same as that that might be given to any wealthy American who chooses not to discuss politics.
*************************
Pathetic.
*************************
I wouldn’t go THAT far….but it does sound as if your expectations regarding Cain are very, very low. But at least you answered the question, as lame and vague as your answers were. No one else even tried.

This is what Obama should have done as that is what Bush said. Bush said (and I am just paraphrasing) that the person that gets in after him will know the truth of what is happening. Meaning of course that anyone thinking that ending the wars was possible will be in for a surprise and 3 years and counting the war is not over so obviously Obama knows something that he didn’t know before he became President and was talking all kinds of things that he really didn’t know much about. Like closing Gitmo yet something else he didnt do and he never explained as to why he didn’t do it.

It is best to KNOW the details of what is going on before making assessments as to what he is going to do so Cain is correct.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

May 27, 2011 6:45 am

Member

Olivia

Go pollute the huffington post or whatever liberal, anti American sites you visit, your looooong boring riddles are taking up too much space and most if not all of us can only stand to read through a sentence or two. Your a fool.

***********************
Translation: “You’ve asked me some questions that I can’t answer, and that makes me uncomfortable.”

Welcome to the world of political discussion, John. Did you think it was all (and only) about a bunch of like-minded people applauding each other?

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

May 27, 2011 6:50 am

Member

Olivia

This is what Obama should have done as that is what Bush said. Bush said (and I am just paraphrasing) that the person that gets in after him will know the truth of what is happening. Meaning of course that anyone thinking that ending the wars was possible will be in for a surprise and 3 years and counting the war is not over so obviously Obama knows something that he didn’t know before he became President and was talking all kinds of things that he really didn’t know much about. Like closing Gitmo yet something else he didnt do and he never explained as to why he didn’t do it.

It is best to KNOW the details of what is going on before making assessments as to what he is going to do so Cain is correct.

***********************
That’s true only up to a point. A candidate should be able to articulate his general goals for the nation, even if he’s unable to specify exactly how he’ll go about working to achieve them. Otherwise, how can anyone know whether he’s the one they want in the driver’s seat in 2013?

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

May 27, 2011 6:57 am

Guest

alien

i have a theory.. i only learned this a few days ago. He is widely credited (in some circles..) with bringing down Clinton’s healthcare initiative, because of a notable confrontation at some business leader pow-wow back then. I thought i was paying attention back then, but I have no memory of him

Wish I could take credit for that one, but I saw it somewhere on the internets recently.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

May 22, 2011 4:20 pm

Member

deepthinker

Herman Cain has my vote, plan and simple. This is a man that should have barry and co shaking and wondering how are we going to tear down the brother who busted his ass and made it all on his own. No hand out, no numbers game. Just hard work and a dedication to achieving the American Dream the right way. He EARNED it.

Yes on that Wednesday in November we can all sing “Free at last, free at last. Thank God Almighty, we are free at last.”

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

May 22, 2011 1:54 pm

Member

Olivia

Herman Cain has my vote, plan and simple. This is a man that should have barry and co shaking and wondering how are we going to tear down the brother who busted his ass and made it all on his own. No hand out, no numbers game. Just hard work and a dedication to achieving the American Dream the right way. He EARNED it.
**************************
Psssst, don’t look now, but so did Obama. I know it isn’t “politically correct” to admit that here, but it’s true.

ROFLMOA . . . yeah we are all familiar with the Obama success story. Shady people take an interest in you and pay for your education, house and political career. It’s a real heart tugger . . . right out of the pen of Horatio Alger.

I know. When you want to look for corruption in Chicago politics, you don’t have to look far. Their biggest mistake is in thinking that it can be spread to federal government — once the squealers start to sing to make their sentences light, a general house cleaning will commence. It can be in the courtroom, or it can be at the ballot box — either way, the end result’s the same.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

May 23, 2011 7:41 pm

Member

Ruben

Any bets on when Blago will be Ron Browned or Vince Fostered? Obama will tear a page right out of the Clinton playbook. Too obvious? No way. The White House and Chicago Machine will count on the American Public saying, “Too preposterous to be true.”

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

May 23, 2011 8:34 pm

Member

Olivia

ROFLMOA . . . yeah we are all familiar with the Obama success story. Shady people take an interest in you and pay for your education, house and political career. It’s a real heart tugger . . . right out of the pen of Horatio Alger

************************
And your evidence for this rather mean spirited charge would be……”

Who owns Obama’s house?
Who paid for it?
Who paid for his education?
What were his grades in college?
Where is the thesis?
How did he distinguish himself in the private sector?
Has he had a real job outside of public office?

Ps- Sorry I haven’t had time to source these questions through any of the news outlets fortunate enough to contain the current truth. You know the ones paid for with Soros and TARP money.

Who owns Obama’s house?
Who paid for it?
Who paid for his education?
What were his grades in college?
Where is the thesis?
How did he distinguish himself in the private sector?
Has he had a real job outside of public office?

**************************
None of the above is “evidence,” Kip. It’s merely random mudslinging—–tossing a lot of mud into the air and hoping some of it hits the target. And none of it has any bearing on whether or not Obama is qualified to serve as our president.

By the way, Obama isn’t under any obligation to surrender his right to privacy, just because some angry busybodies want and expect him to. This isn’t Nazi Germany. Sorry.

“By the way, Obama isn’t under any obligation to surrender his right to privacy, just because some angry busybodies want and expect him to. This isn’t Nazi Germany. Sorry.”

Of course he isn’t. That honor is reserved for us . . . the little people. Funny you should knock the Nazi’s. I would have thought you were a big fan of national socialism.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

June 6, 2011 2:41 pm

Member

Olivia

By the way, Obama isn’t under any obligation to surrender his right to privacy, just because some angry busybodies want and expect him to. This isn’t Nazi Germany. Sorry.”

Of course he isn’t. That honor is reserved for us . . . the little people.
*********************
Oh, stop bawling and whining. Can you name even one civil right or liberty you’ve been ordered to surrender since Obama took office?

Didn’t think so.
**********************
Funny you should knock the Nazi’s. I would have thought you were a big fan of national socialism
**********************
No, National Socialism (which is, by the way, a misnomer) is a far right wing ideology. Hitler pledged to give the people what they wanted, and what they wanted was very similar to what the far right wants today: instant jobs, a powerful military, powerful police, lots and lots of military pageantry, patriotic megarallies, eugenics, and focusing on Family and Country (but excluding those with the wrong genetics).

What they didn’t want (and Hitler pledged to do away with) were the “intelligentsia,” homosexuals, gypsies, foreigners (from selected countries), juvenile delinquency, the post-WWI economic mess they were in, controversial arts and jazz music (with its black origins), among other things.

The thing is, Hitler delivered on every single one of his promises, in record time—including bringing Germany back to prosperity. The only catch: he neglected to tell the people what it would cost them in the end. And you and I both know what that price turned out to be.

No, there’s nothing I like or admire about Nazism. I don’t even think their military uniforms were cool looking. 😛

Oh, stop bawling and whining. Can you name even one civil right or liberty you’ve been ordered to surrender since Obama took office?

Hmm how about administration support for reading citizen’s emails without a warrant. Or tracking them through cell towers their mobile devices have pinged to, or DNA sampling upon arrest or directing LEO on how to target citizen’s with Ron Paul stickers or those showing messages of constitutional support. And how much of the PATRIOT act has Obama worked to do away with? Oh but that’s not his fault is it. He didn’t actually reauthorize the bill . . . that was Autopen.
___

Your assertion that national socialism is a far right ideology is indicative of an understanding of political ideology that doesn’t even extend to the high school level. In politics (especially world politics) terms like left wing and right wing lose much of their meaning unless they have first been determined by a time and location. In 1950 Moscow Joseph Stalin was a conservative . . . while if he were to visit Washington DC of the same year he could have been properly categorized as a liberal. Although not the sort of classical liberal that I sometimes identify myself as.

The Nazi aversion to art and all that does not glory the state is what comes after the revolution or coup. After the useful idiots have wrested control away from the established powers and given it to the upstarts its weekly shaves, haircuts and gulags for those who don’t praise the glory of the collective.

If your want to know about military pageantry I suggest you watch some video of May Day celebration’s from the history of The Soviet Union.

If you want to see some leo brutality why don’t you watch some video of the Obama era TSA.

If you want to know about eugenics do some research into the American progressive movement of the early 20th century.

And applying the term national socialism to the Nazi’s is not a misnomer. They were national socialists. Complete with a central command control of the economy that is the hallmark of most socialist systems.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

June 6, 2011 3:33 pm

Member

sifi

Yes we Cain because Obama is not Able.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

May 22, 2011 12:49 pm

Guest

Mark Roberts

Guys, Herman Cain is a former Federal Reserve Chairman. The Fed is one of the biggest problems with our economy. Herman Cain stated that there is no need to audit the federal reserve because they have their own internal audits. He claims that the federal reserve isn’t hiding anything, and if we want to know something about it, we should just call the federal reserve up and have one of their “PR” people explain how it works to us. Google “Herman Cain audit the fed” and see, there are several results with youtube videos. He’s just another politician who want’s to distract average people from a problem that is one of the biggest threats to our sovereignty.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

May 22, 2011 12:38 pm

Guest

Buck O'Fama

Y, he is former chain of the KC Fed Reserve Bank. He also says now that he would not oppose an audit.

The truth is nobody is going to be perfect. At present, I would still prefer someone like HC than Mitt Romney who devised the miserable Romneycare fiasco and is still trying to defend it. I’m gonna wait and see the whole field before I get too excited about anybody.

In the end, I will vote for almost ANYONE over Barack Obama, even Mitt if he turned out to be the nominee. Short of nominating Botox Pelosi, there is no way I will be sitting out 2012 “in protest”; getting rid of the doofus is the most important thing.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

May 22, 2011 4:30 pm

Guest

Mark Roberts

Actually, he may have said he wouldn’t oppose an audit, but the most recent thing I could find was him saying it was unnecessary because they audit themselves. He doesn’t support auditing the fed.

I agree that Romney would be a very bad choice, because of his involvement in the mass health care program. I guess HC would probably be better than obama, but I won’t be supporting HC in the primary. I’m supporting Ron Paul. Yes he’s got his problems too. I just don’t trust anyone that is, or was associated with the fed.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

May 23, 2011 5:07 am

Member

Olivia

Yes he’s got his problems too. I just don’t trust anyone that is, or was associated with the fed.

*****************
That’s like being a patient in need of abdominal surgery, who’s trying to find a competent surgeon that’s never been associated with the medical profession. Ever stop to think that maybe your criteria are a bit unrealistic? 😉

I don’t get where people think that auditing the fed will actually do anything. Right now, our government — democrat and RINO alike, are perfectly happy with the fed, and don’t care how crooked it is. In fact, they probably make more because it is crooked.

Until we can get in a government that has some degree of honesty, auditing the fed is just an empty slogan — any negative results will be buried. People already on the take are not capable of auditing anything. Look for any audit committee to be a carefully selected panel of crooks, cheats, loonies, and imbeciles. Probably be headed by Geithner himself.

We can’t hold out for Jesus to run as the Republican candidate — we have to get in good people — and the one person that I’ve seen that is better than any we’ve had so far is Cain. He has a chance.

Let’s see how many of the “I will vote for Barack because he is black” people will vote for Cain.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

May 22, 2011 11:08 am

Member

Olivia

Let’s see how many of the “I will vote for Barack because he is black” people will vote for Cain.
*********************
Well, hey, everybody knows that we liberals will vote for anyone with dark skin, right? So this is your big chance. Explain to us exactly why you think Herman Cain would make a better president than any of the other GOP hopefuls, and who knows? Maybe he’ll be elected in a landslide.

So: what are his ideas for addressing the unemployment situation?

What leads you to believe he’d be a superior leader in terms of foreign policy?

What would he do about the health care situation, that would benefit not just the wealthy and well-insured, but also the chronically ill, the poor, the unemployed and the underinsured?

How about our Constitution? What’s his background in that, that leads you to believe he understands just what he’d be pledging to defend, and what isn’t part of it at all?

How’s his stance on freedom of religion?

And, finally, I know how outraged some of you got when Obama, who had only 2 years’ experience as a U.S. Senator, and none at all as a state governor, was elected president. What kind of background in government does Cain have?

I simply can’t wait to hear all about why you think he’s better than all the rest the GOP has to offer. 🙂

OMG really? really? I am suppose to read this crap? You bore me!!!! You are so boring! OMG am I the only one that finds this chick boring? Why are you so boring? and why are you still here? You are definetly getting paid…

Actually he’d be worse. I’m not a Republican but it doesn’t take one to reember that under the GOP 5% unemployment is a sign of the worst economy since the great depression . . . while uner a Democrat 10% is evidence we have turned a corner and have left the great recession far behind us.

“What leads you to believe he’d be a superior leader in terms of foreign policy? ”

He wouldn’t have to be a superior leader in this theater . . . just being a leader would more than suffice.

“What would he do about the health care situation, that would benefit not just the wealthy and well-insured, but also the chronically ill, the poor, the unemployed and the underinsured? ”

Yeah I just love Obama care. What could be more awesome than a system that forces me to insure my body -as if it were the property of the government- as well as compels me to get a second job to buy health care for those who couldn’t be bothered to get a first job to pay for their own.

“How about our Constitution? What’s his background in that, that leads you to believe he understands just what he’d be pledging to defend, and what isn’t part of it at all?</i"

Hmm, he hasn't called the document a

“…charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that. …

So he doesn’t seem to hate the document like Proffessor lecturer Obama. That is a good start.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

May 23, 2011 4:35 pm

Member

Ruben

Break out the popcorn! I’m taking a front row seat to watch Olivia’s exchange with K-Hook!

Actually he’d be worse. I’m not a Republican but it doesn’t take one to reember that under the GOP 5% unemployment is a sign of the worst economy since the great depression . . . while uner a Democrat 10% is evidence we have turned a corner and have left the great recession far behind us.
**************************
Wrong. Democrats knew (as you apparently don’t) that one major cause of this deep recession was the 8-year GOP spending spree (of which the so-called “fiscal conservatives” were amazingly tolerant), and that it’s impossible to cure such a recession—up to and including fixing the unemployment situation—-within 3 years.

What the statistics DO show is that Republicans were dead wrong in their assumption that “deficits don’t matter,” and that wars + tax cuts would equal prosperity in the end for John Q. Public. And that, more than anything else, is why a Democratic president was elected, and so many GOP Congressmen sent packing.

Those who were gullible enough to expect an instant fix, of course, promptly voted in GOP Congressmen again in 2010. Most ran on a “where are the jobs?” platform—-them immediately forgot about it, and started focusing on pet projects (abortion rights, repealing “Obamacare” without giving any thought to coming up with an intelligent alternative, etc.) once they took office.
**************************

“What leads you to believe he’d be a superior leader in terms of foreign policy? ”
*************************
He wouldn’t have to be a superior leader in this theater . . . just being a leader would more than suffice.
************************
Translation: “I dunno,” but all the other far righters seem to think he’s great, so I’m going along with the crowd.”
************************

“What would he do about the health care situation, that would benefit not just the wealthy and well-insured, but also the chronically ill, the poor, the unemployed and the underinsured? ”
**********************
Yeah I just love Obama care. What could be more awesome than a system that forces me to insure my body -as if it were the property of the government- as well as compels me to get a second job to buy health care for those who couldn’t be bothered to get a first job to pay for their own.
***********************
Translation: “Gosh, I dunno. But I support him, anyway, because everybody else seems to think he’d be good.”
***********************
“How about our Constitution? What’s his background in that, that leads you to believe he understands just what he’d be pledging to defend, and what isn’t part of it at all?</i"
***********************
Hmm, he hasn't called the document a
“…charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that. So he doesn’t seem to hate the document like Proffessor lecturer Obama. That is a good start.

**********************
Translation: "Gosh, I dunno about that, either. But but but but OBAMA said something bad about the Constitution….at least, I THINK it's bad, because everybody says so….so let's bash him, instead of talking about Cain's position on the issues."

Well, Kip, so far you're batting zero. You don't have the foggiest idea what Cain would do to fix the health care situation, but you don't care, just so long as he isn't Obama. And you don't have the foggiest idea what he knows or doesn't know about the Constitution, but you don't care, as long as the far right isn't accusing him of "hating it," as they are accusing Obama.

This is what amuses me about so many of you far righters: your entire political viewpoint revolves around hating Obama. And, when asked why you hate Obama so much, all you can do is parrot Obamaphobic propaganda. 🙂

I'm afraid you're all going to have to do better than that, if you expect to get him out of the White House in 2013. "Because he ain't Obama" might be a good enough reason for YOU to wax ecstatic over him, but it isn't likely to fool most thinking people.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

May 24, 2011 9:18 am

Member

Babydoll102187

Well thats cool Olivia, because what amuses me about you letfies is how all our woes where Bush’s fault, yrs 2001-2008. And all I ever heard was left wing propaganda from left wingers. And the only people who ever voted for that evil oil mongering cowboy were dumb uneducated redneck/hillbillies. Or evolution bashing to dumb to live Christians.–Oh wait, now we are the right wing, to dumb to live uneducated redneck/hillibillies who are too stupid to understand how great a President like Obama really is, because we are too stupid to know anything because all those years of higher ed were wasted on the lot of us! Those poor stupid/dumb republican voters and their bogus ideas are a waste of time/energy….Atleast thats what I am hearing from the liberal wings.

So thats cool, Olivia, thats cool.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

May 24, 2011 10:23 am

Member

Olivia

Well thats cool Olivia, because what amuses me about you letfies is how all our woes where Bush’s fault, yrs 2001-2008. And all I ever heard was left wing propaganda from left wingers. And the only people who ever voted for that evil oil mongering cowboy were dumb uneducated redneck/hillbillies. Or evolution bashing to dumb to live Christians.–Oh wait, now we are the right wing, to dumb to live uneducated redneck/hillibillies who are too stupid to understand how great a President like Obama really is, because we are too stupid to know anything because all those years of higher ed were wasted on the lot of us! Those poor stupid/dumb republican voters and their bogus ideas are a waste of time/energy….Atleast thats what I am hearing from the liberal wings.
****************************
Oh, stop it. If there’s anything more annoying than a right winger who endlessly parrots propaganda, it’s a right winger who tries to play victim at every opportunity. The simple truth is that, if you don’t want to be accused of being dumb or dishonest…..then stop saying dumb and dishonest things.

In fact, Bush did inherit a robust economy, which he proceeded to drive into a ditch through warmongering, tax cuts and failure to maintain our infrastructure. All of this, mind you, with precious little criticism from the far right, for all their current claims to have opposed his spending sprees.

Now the far right wants to resuscitate that whole failed trickle-down economics scheme. Apparently they’ve bought into the idea that, if we keep coddling and catering to wealthy business leaders, they’ll be so grateful that they’ll hire lots more employees (whether they need them or not) just for the sake of being good guys.

Whether you’re a redneck or not, and whether or not you wasted your education, that’s a pretty naive and illogical position to hold. There’s something rather weird (not to say gullible) about someone who assumes that government is inherently evil, but is ready and willing to place the nation’s health, prosperity and well-being entirely into the hands of wealthy and ambitious businessmen.

By the way, I’ve made no comments at all about Obama’s perceived “greatness.” I’ve simply challenged those who post obvious lies about him. Funny how you just assumed that I was saying the same things that all that right wing propaganda keeps telling you we liberals always say. 😉

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

May 24, 2011 2:05 pm

Member

Babydoll102187

Do you have any thing to say on this forum that isnt condescending? You say you are here to present a liberal point of view, yet everything I have read from your post are not exactly doing your liberal friends any justice. All your doing here is what you’re acusing me of doing “parroting propaganda”.
My above comment is one of two comments you have ever slammed me for, yet my serious inquires have gone without any answer. Of course I didnt expect to be lectured like a little school girl about playing the victim and parroting propaganda and whether or not education was wasted. You generalized, as did I. My statements reflect 11 yrs worth of observing the total biased approach main stream media has taken. Do you deny that the main stream media does not respect people who do not live in cities and struggle to make a living, people who have conservative beliefs are not mocked and ridiculed?
So I begin:
“In fact, Bush did inherit a robust economy, which he proceeded to drive into a ditch through warmongering, tax cuts and failure to maintain our infrastructure.”
Sure, robust for most, but did he really drive it into a ditch? Well, perhaps he and congress didnt do enough to stop what was coming, but warmongering? You really want to debate war with me?
Tax cuts?
Do you mean taxcuts for the wealthy, the ones who employ people? Well your right, because I dont believe he cut ENOUGH taxes! He should have cut taxes across the board so American business men would keep their business here and have incentive to do so, instead now they are leaving because this country, for some weird reason, is hostile to creating really jobs, like industry, the industry that made us great once.( My personal guess is that the hippies who hated business in the 60’s are now influencing policies to kill it for good) Hey, just for fun, remember the extra stimulus we recieved along with our taxes a couple years back? I remember hearing that despite all the” it wont work” they refracted their comments and admitted that it did. Temporary, but it worked! Today the private sector shrinks and the government jobs grow. Doesnt it better benefit the country to have more private sector jobs than government? If we all are employed by the government then they kind of own us, they dictate where are checks come from because we become dependant on them. Isnt that bad for democracy?
Failure to maintain our infrastructure?
Do you mean social programs? Personally the states should decide how to best care for its people, it really isnt up to the federal government. They are more like overseers, while the states make the more important decisions concerning its people with in. I think the federal government’s job is to support states rights, protect our borders, and manage its military. It should act as a mediator between its people(states) and business, but not always, only when absolutely needed. Our states are loosing power when they need to be gaining power. The people are only free if their states are strong, not weakend by federal government.
Now, I’m guessing here, but you could have also ment soc. sec. and medicare? If so then I think soc. sec. and medicare were great they way they were designed. But over the last 40 years the federal government has borrowed borrowed borrowed against them and NOW they are bankrupt. Dont blame Bush, blame every senate, house and president who sat over the last 40 yrs and did nothing!
Now I shall get alittle personal:
“Whether you’re a redneck or not, and whether or not you wasted your education, that’s a pretty naive and illogical position to hold. There’s something rather weird (not to say gullible) about someone who assumes that government is inherently evil, but is ready and willing to place the nation’s health, prosperity and well-being entirely into the hands of wealthy and ambitious businessmen. ”
All business men are wealthy and ambitious? How many do you know? Why am I naive? Is it because I understand a bit more about business than you? Reguardless it is ALWAYS the employee who thinks the employer is out to get them untill they become employers, then they realize just how “gullible” their postion was. My guess is that your father never owned his own business, otherwise your comment is just rude.

”Wrong. Democrats knew (as you apparently don’t) that one major cause of this deep recession was the 8-year GOP spending spree (of which the so-called “fiscal conservatives” were amazingly tolerant), and that it’s impossible to cure such a recession—up to and including fixing the unemployment situation—-within 3 years.”

Those tolerant of the Bush era spending put party over ideology. And, although this is anecdotal, I cannot think of many Republican friends of mine that were willing to grant Bush and congress a pass on this. Which is why they sat out the 2006 and 2008 elections.

It is unfortunate that Obama didn’t run on the campaign promise that “everybody knows that the economy is going to suck and unemployment will sky rocket for at least three years after I take office.” However it hardly seems possible that the clock on that three years has yet begun. Given that the “spending spree” has continued and increased.

”What the statistics DO show is that Republicans were dead wrong in their assumption that “deficits don’t matter,” and that wars + tax cuts would equal prosperity in the end for John Q. Public. And that, more than anything else, is why a Democratic president was elected, and so many GOP Congressmen sent packing.”

Yeah how is that Democrat working out for you? Three wars, massive expansion of the deficits and even more runaway spending. Obama hasn’t even raised taxes yet. Well, not at least in the normal ways. His -and the Feds- policies have led to the sorts of inflation that robs Americans of large portions of their wealth.

Those who were gullible enough to expect an instant fix, of course, promptly voted in GOP Congressmen again in 2010. Most ran on a “where are the jobs?” platform—-them immediately forgot about it, and started focusing on pet projects (abortion rights, repealing “Obamacare” without giving any thought to coming up with an intelligent alternative, etc.) once they took office.

Retaking the House and massive gains in the Senate wasn’t the end game. That was just the first move. Although I’ve little faith in many of these Republicans. Most of these politicians are statists . . . they just disagree on how far and how fast the government should expand.

____

I understand your need for these strawman “translations” of yours. Such a two dimensional understanding of politics and economics does necessitate as much obfuscation as you can muster. But my answer to your questions remain the same.

We need a foreign policy leader. Not someone who goes around the world apologizing for America and then decides to bomb Libya. Of course it is hardly likely the man shares a foreign policy view as “exteme” as mine. We cannot be the world’s police (actually Cain has said something along those lines), we must make America the best place in the world for self sovereignty and bring the world to liberty through our example …not our compulsion.

As for health care . . . hands off my body. Hands out of my wallet. I am not your property. Neither is my labor.

”Translation: “Gosh, I dunno about that, either. But but but but OBAMA said something bad about the Constitution….at least, I THINK it’s bad, because everybody says so….so let’s bash him, instead of talking about Cain’s position on the issues.”

What you’ve failed to comprehend is why what Obama said was bad. The quote reveals his belief that the existence of the state is mandated by a need to control the people and not to protect the liberties, rights and property of the individual against those that would usurp these things. Indeed, under the Obama vision, the government becomes the very mechanism that limits freedoms, subverts rights and confiscates property. What he calls “negative liberties” are the only liberties worth having.

T”his is what amuses me about so many of you far righters: your entire political viewpoint revolves around hating Obama. And, when asked why you hate Obama so much, all you can do is parrot Obamaphobic propaganda.”

My political viewpoint revolves around the notion that there are natural rights of the individual. These rights are not granted by the state. The state exists to protect the individual from persons and powers that would subvert these rights. When the state roams beyond this purpose it becomes inevitable that it will become the major cause in the loss of liberty.

If I am Obamaphobic it is because he has demonstrated a clear hostility to these notions of natural rights, freedom and property.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

May 24, 2011 5:48 pm

Member

Omar

My political viewpoint revolves around the notion that there are natural rights of the individual. These rights are not granted by the state. The state exists to protect the individual from persons and powers that would subvert these rights. When the state roams beyond this purpose it becomes inevitable that it will become the major cause in the loss of liberty.

This.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

May 24, 2011 6:20 pm

Member

Olivia

Wrong. Democrats knew (as you apparently don’t) that one major cause of this deep recession was the 8-year GOP spending spree (of which the so-called “fiscal conservatives” were amazingly tolerant), and that it’s impossible to cure such a recession—up to and including fixing the unemployment situation—-within 3 years.”
************************

Those tolerant of the Bush era spending put party over ideology. And, although this is anecdotal, I cannot think of many Republican friends of mine that were willing to grant Bush and congress a pass on this. Which is why they sat out the 2006 and 2008 elections.
*************************
Then they were fools. Boycotting an election because they didn’t like the options is the action of a disgruntled consumer, not of a responsible voter. But I have to smile at right wing revisionary history. SOMEONE liked Bush’s spending sprees enough to elect him to a second term—–but you’d never know it now, the way everyone hastens to claim that they never actually approved of his fiscal policies.
*************************

It is unfortunate that Obama didn’t run on the campaign promise that “everybody knows that the economy is going to suck and unemployment will sky rocket for at least three years after I take office.” However it hardly seems possible that the clock on that three years has yet begun. Given that the “spending spree” has continued and increased.
************************
He spent money because the economy was in tatters, and something had to be done to repair it.

I like to use a house party analogy to illustrate. For eight years, the Republicans had a big party—to which most of us weren’t invited—- at taxpayer expense. Finally, the time came when the party was over, the house had been completely trashed–windows broken, toilet stopped up, bathtub overflow causing damage to the kitchen ceiling, etc.— the guests had gone home with their lavish door prizes, and there was a line of tradesmen standing at the door waiting to be paid. Enter Obama. Now, I ask you: what would you have expected him to do under the circumstances? Stiff the creditors on their bills? Refuse to make house repairs, and let the house deteriorate still further until it had to be torn down?

I’m sorry, but there are time when “But we don’t have any money!” is a poor—and hugely expensive—–excuse to avoid fixing a wreck. Obama truly had no choice but to spend money. And the Republicans knew this as well as anyone. But it was more politically expedient to condemn him for failing to do the impossible—–to fix, within 3 years and at no cost or obligation, what it had taken Bush and Cheney eight years, and hundreds of billions of dollars, to wreck.
*************************
”What the statistics DO show is that Republicans were dead wrong in their assumption that “deficits don’t matter,” and that wars + tax cuts would equal prosperity in the end for John Q. Public. And that, more than anything else, is why a Democratic president was elected, and so many GOP Congressmen sent packing.”

Yeah how is that Democrat working out for you? Three wars, massive expansion of the deficits and even more runaway spending. Obama hasn’t even raised taxes yet. Well, not at least in the normal ways. His -and the Feds- policies have led to the sorts of inflation that robs Americans of large portions of their wealth.
**************************
If Republicans had been honest and responsible in the first place, they would never have started a war-on-credit while cutting taxes at the same time. It’s the house party mentality again. They gave their supporters lots of glittering pageantry while they were busily emptying the nation’s coffers. I wonder how many of you would have been screaming your approval of war, if it had meant raising taxes and instituting a draft. But, no, too many short sighted Republicans didn’t care about the cost (either in dollars or to our nation’s youth), just so long as it didn’t directly affect THEM. And, as usual, it was the less affluent Americans who paid the price, while the wealthier ones made out like bandits on war profiteering.
***********************

Those who were gullible enough to expect an instant fix, of course, promptly voted in GOP Congressmen again in 2010. Most ran on a “where are the jobs?” platform—-them immediately forgot about it, and started focusing on pet projects (abortion rights, repealing “Obamacare” without giving any thought to coming up with an intelligent alternative, etc.) once they took office.
***********************
Retaking the House and massive gains in the Senate wasn’t the end game. That was just the first move.
**********************
Spoken like a loyal Republican—-but the fact remains that they’re spending more time trying to restrict homosexuals and Planned Parenthood than addressing the job situation. So far, the only solution I’ve heard offered (when they talk about it at all) is the same old failed trickle-down theory. You know: give big handouts to wealthy businessmen, and hope that they’ll deign to return the favor by hiring more employees. WHich, of course, is a very unsound practice, since wealthy businessmen got to BE wealthy businessmen by knowing how to keep the money flowing TOWARD them, rather than AWAY from them.

It never seems to occur to far righters that those pundits who push for this strategy are extremely wealthy people themselves, and therefore have a vested interest in trickle down economics. That’s what’s so strange about them clamoring to elect businessmen to high government positions. This is a cliche, but it truly is a matter of trying to elect foxes to guard the henhouse.

Off to work now. If you want to discuss this further, I’ll finish it tomorrow.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

May 24, 2011 7:35 pm

Member

nonkenyan

“That’s what’s so strange about them clamoring to elect businessmen to high government positions. This is a cliche, but it truly is a matter of trying to elect foxes to guard the henhouse.
————————————————————-And your side elects comedians, like Al Franken and Joe Biden. Pity

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

May 24, 2011 8:42 pm

Member

Olivia

That’s what’s so strange about them clamoring to elect businessmen to high government positions. This is a cliche, but it truly is a matter of trying to elect foxes to guard the henhouse.
————————————————————-And your side elects comedians, like Al Franken and Joe Biden. Pity
*********************
Biden is a lawyer by profession, with over 35 years of experience as a U.S. Senator.
Franken is a professional writer and political commentator, as well as a comedian.
Is that the best you could do, to defend the Republican practice of electing foxes to guard the henhouse? 🙂

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

May 25, 2011 4:58 am

Member

nonkenyan

Nope. I can do better. How ’bout democrats electing idiots to guard the shithouse? Hardy har har. In a short time you have swung from pitting everyone against the ‘superior liberal’ (you, in your mind), and conservative to now democrats against republicans. I’d ask when you changed horses, but I’m not into arguing with you, right now.

”Then they were fools. Boycotting an election because they didn’t like the options is the action of a disgruntled consumer, not of a responsible voter. But I have to smile at right wing revisionary history. SOMEONE liked Bush’s spending sprees enough to elect him to a second term—–but you’d never know it now, the way everyone hastens to claim that they never actually approved of his fiscal policies.”

Who are you to decide what the actions of a responsible voter are? The vote belongs to the individual and it is theirs to do with as they see fit. I am sorry if that doesn’t please your imperial worshipfullness . . . but your paternalistic ruling class hasn’t yet taken control of all our choices.

And please don’t presume to tell me about what I felt or when I felt it. I understand you’ve a need to exercise authority over every aspect of a person that you can get a hold of . . . but for the time being my memories are still mine.

”He spent money because the economy was in tatters, and something had to be done to repair it. I like to use a house party analogy to illustrate. For eight years, the Republicans had a big party—to which most of us weren’t invited—- at taxpayer expense. Finally, the time came when the party was over, the house had been completely trashed–windows broken, toilet stopped up, bathtub overflow causing damage to the kitchen ceiling, etc.— the guests had gone home with their lavish door prizes, and there was a line of tradesmen standing at the door waiting to be paid. Enter Obama. Now, I ask you: what would you have expected him to do under the circumstances? Stiff the creditors on their bills? Refuse to make house repairs, and let the house deteriorate still further until it had to be torn down?”

Your analogy makes no sense. What creditors has Obama paid? He has increased the debt. What has Obama fixed? He has deflated the currency with the money created -in part- for supposed building projects that do nothing for me other than increase my drive time/gas consumption because I’m being rerouted to work so some guys can stand around drinking big gulps and talking on cell phones while standing on top of roads that worked far better before they were “revitalized”. He has destroyed the value of the dollar with vote buying schemes. He has made it harder for working Americans. You cannot have it both ways. If what Bush did was bad then what Obama has done is worse. Such is the nature of doubling down on a pathetically bad hand.

”I’m sorry, but there are time when “But we don’t have any money!” is a poor—and hugely expensive—–excuse to avoid fixing a wreck. Obama truly had no choice but to spend money. And the Republicans knew this as well as anyone. But it was more politically expedient to condemn him for failing to do the impossible—–to fix, within 3 years and at no cost or obligation, what it had taken Bush and Cheney eight years, and hundreds of billions of dollars, to wreck.”

Seriously, you think wasting trillions more dollars fixes wasting hundreds of billions of dollars? You think Obama had no choice but to spend the money? And what results has Obama gotten us with all this spending? He’s gotten ten percent unemployment. He’s gotten the rapid decline of the value of the dollar. He’s gotten a stagnant economy. He’s gotten everything the Austrians predicted. And nothing the Obama economists promised.

”If Republicans had been honest and responsible in the first place, they would never have started a war-on-credit while cutting taxes at the same time. It’s the house party mentality again. They gave their supporters lots of glittering pageantry while they were busily emptying the nation’s coffers. I wonder how many of you would have been screaming your approval of war, if it had meant raising taxes and instituting a draft. But, no, too many short sighted Republicans didn’t care about the cost (either in dollars or to our nation’s youth), just so long as it didn’t directly affect THEM. And, as usual, it was the less affluent Americans who paid the price, while the wealthier ones made out like bandits on war profiteering.”

Your ignorance of even simple economics is glaring to the point of being obscene. There was no war on credit. Fed and Government policy made it nearly impossible not to qualify for credit even if the borrower was hopelessly incapable of paying the load back. Beyond this the Fed kept lowering interest rates. That made money cheaper. That made credit more accessible. That also punished savings by stripping it of its future purchasing power . . . stockpiling money meant a loss of wealth. (yeah I know you meant “wars run on credit” but this was more fun, besides that gem is covered in the next paragraph)

If you want a system in which taxes have to be raised to fund wars then you want an end to the Fed. Without the Fed it becomes extremely difficult to finance projects based on the colateralization of the labor of unborn generations. But don’t commit to that just yet . . . it also makes it difficult to credit fund all those social manipulation schemes you want enacted.

And as for wealthier Americans making out like bandits on war profiteering . . . have I missed something. Are there no more wars? Has Obama stopped spending money on them? Or is it just a case of four legs good, two legs better? And spending is spending isn’t it? It’s all a matter of just getting money into the economy so that we can boost aggregate demand right? Or was I out for that day of macro?

”Spoken like a loyal Republican—-but the fact remains that they’re spending more time trying to restrict homosexuals and Planned Parenthood than addressing the job situation. So far, the only solution I’ve heard offered (when they talk about it at all) is the same old failed trickle-down theory. You know: give big handouts to wealthy businessmen, and hope that they’ll deign to return the favor by hiring more employees. WHich, of course, is a very unsound practice, since wealthy businessmen got to BE wealthy businessmen by knowing how to keep the money flowing TOWARD them, rather than AWAY from them. “

Well now that is curious since I am a small “l” libertarian. As far as restricting homosexuals I wouldn’t know anything about that. I don’t oppress anyone or anything. And Planned Parenthood should be defunded. Or are you not culturally sensitive enough to believe that people shouldn’t be forced to pay for services they consider to be murder?

Many of the wealthy businessman you so despise got to be that way because the system is rigged in their favor. Through regulation and tax codes legislate the small man out of business while the big guy finds loopholes or simply passes on the corporate income taxes to the consumer. And if they really play their cards right they can skip the taxes altogether while the government comes up with laws that makes us buy into their products or technologies. Just ask your good buddy Obama about his corpratist ties to GE.

And please, lets not blame capitalism. It hasn’t existed in this country in nearly a century. Reagan managed to unleash just a little bit of it and it (after inflation was beat down with austere interest rates from the Fed) breathed new life into this country. But that was some time ago and we are running on empty. This go round we need a real return to the free market. Not some politician that promised to end cronyism while having TARP rewritten so it could benefit his friends and campaign donors.

”It never seems to occur to far righters that those pundits who push for this strategy are extremely wealthy people themselves, and therefore have a vested interest in trickle down economics. That’s what’s so strange about them clamoring to elect businessmen to high government positions. This is a cliche, but it truly is a matter of trying to elect foxes to guard the henhouse. “

And it never occurs to you that there shouldn’t be a henhouse at all. The economy is organic. It is everywhere and it is all around. It is not a force to be controlled and collected and distributed through a single quasi government authority. The economy should exist between the seller and the buyer. These so called foxes would matter little if you authoritarians weren’t demanding that all our eggs get put into your centrally planned basket.

Ps- If you are looking for some of those malicious “foxes” you might want to try the following:

I like Daniels because I live in Indiana and have seen firsthand what he did for this state, when it was deeply in debt and spending was out of control. But he’s toast now…. because the rabid hatemongers (who are concerned that he has Arab blood in his veins) and evangelicals (who think he should be as judgmental on social issues as they are) have threatened to use some personal family issues in his life as weapons against him, if he had decided to run. With people like that…who needs the leftist propaganda machine.

Cain is the unique candidate because he has never held office and yet has a record of disciplined fiscal leadership. He also has advocated for years less government intervention in every area of our lives, and that includes social issues.

Any private sector executive who is truly successful is one, who can delegate responsibilities out of their realm of expertise to others who are more knowledgeable in those areas. If he can build a solid team of dedicated professionals who share his vision of less government, and those who share that vision can humble themselves enough to contribute to an Administration that he would lead, he stands a good chance of being a very good President.

I have listened to him on radio for years now and he has a some very impressive ideas. I especially like they fact that he supports the Fair Tax. I can never understand why anyone would think taxing income is a good idea in this day and age.

With Daniels out, I am going to be watching him closely.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

May 22, 2011 10:20 am

Guest

hisham

I could easily get behind a ticket with Cain as the primary and any one of the following as a secondary candidate: Keyes, Bachmann, West, even Palin. I think, that if the Repubics want to win, they could put a toaster on the ticket and it could beat Barry, just not a RINO!

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

May 22, 2011 9:34 am

Guest

thatguy

2012 marks the first year I may be able to vote FOR a Presidential candidate because I support him, not because I am terrified of of the Democratic candidate. Sure, he is not perfect but he is light years ahead the other choices we have been offered.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

May 22, 2011 8:40 am

Member

Plainsman

Yeah.. I’ll vote for him.. no question!

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

May 22, 2011 8:25 am

Guest

Wes

In case people don’t know, Cain is a former chairman of a Fed bank and said he wasn’t interested in auditing The Fed.

People from NJ will tell you Chris Christie is a RINO for every topic not involving teachers’ unions.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

May 22, 2011 8:21 am

Member

JustAl

I read somewhere that he actually is in favor of auditing the fed. Honest executives know the value of audits and welcome them.

As long as he doesn’t over do the social con side I think I can support this guy, at least until someone better comes along, maybe West. No way could I support Gingrich, Romney or Huntsman, there’s just no way.